Paul Morris <> writes:

> On 05/17/2018 09:00 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Man, I must have slept through this.  "this is already supported in
>> 2.19" is misleading if it's actually only supported _outside_ of 2.19,
>> namely by chancing upon people in the know in the mailing lists.
>> The problem with that kind of support is that it's unreliable.  Stuff
>> might get reimplemented because people cannot find what they are looking
>> for, and the old code might get removed as bit rot at any point of time.
>> To actually move it to "supported" state inside of LilyPond, there need
>> to be regression tests (which also stop bit rot), user-level
>> documentation and a Changes entry.  That gives a new feature a
>> reasonable chance of getting tested and consolidated in order to be
>> useful for more than a single application (often by a single person) in
>> its region of interest.
>> Do you feel up to getting that kind of support into LilyPond?
> Hi David,  I agree that this deserves to have regression tests,
> user-level docs, and a changes entry (to go with its current
> documentation in the internals reference).  I'll try to find time to
> work on those things in the next weeks.

That would be very appreciated.  Just from the few bits I have read
right now, it appears to me like the purpose, scope, and behavior of
that extension is a whole lot more specific, prescriptive and
predictable in connection with various backends than Urs' proposal.
Which does not preclude Urs building some higher-level functionality of
the kind he envisions based on this.

David Kastrup

lilypond-devel mailing list

Reply via email to